Post Reply
Page 61 of 94  •  Prev 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 ... 94 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Cow Flees Slaughterhouse
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 5:55PM #601
rabello
Posts: 20,955

May 6, 2012 -- 10:43AM, christzen wrote:

Nature,evolution, whatever you wish to call it,designed us to be omnivores.  It wasn't decided that we would become meat eaters by some committee vote 25,000 years ago.  We are what nature has made us.


Nature didn't "design" anything.   Meat eating by humans is an adaptation, just as grass eating by cows is an adaptation.  It is not a primary adaptation in humans, though, because humans lack physical adaptations to be able to kill animals or to eat it's raw flesh, fat and muscles or drink its raw blood.  Could have gone a different way had another species evolved to be able to make tools to counter the weapons of mass destruction human beings creat to make up for their limited physical adaptations.

May 6, 2012 -- 11:19AM, arielg wrote:

Morality means  to take the other into consideration, not just yourself. The self centered individual who just see what he/she  wants, without any consideration for the others, is immoral. That is why killing another being, no matter what their level of development according to human  human scale, is immoral. It is a disrespect for their right to be alive.


Animals  do not need morals.   Humans with a little moral, need  to justify their selfish actions. Humans with more conscience, avoid the action altogether. But the rationalizations of self centered egos can be extremely clever and even logic.


Thank you, arielg

May 6, 2012 -- 11:32AM, arielg wrote:

And, pray tell, why should it be done  "as humanely as possible"?


I certainly hope you will get a serious answer to this most significant of questions, since it is at odd with the claim that nature "designed" animals to be eaten by humans, and humans to eat animals.  


May 6, 2012 -- 12:27PM, christine3 wrote:

We are vegetarians and vegans.  We stated that, and we don't care how much you find fault. This is our lifestyle.


I am neither vegetarian nor vegan, but I do think these are the most enlightened choices that a person can make in the corrupted, techno-geeky, social-darwinistic modern world where meat eating has nothing to do with preventing starvation.

Moderated by Merope on May 07, 2012 - 12:56AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 5:55PM #602
teilhard
Posts: 50,878

The Question of "Vegan" or "Omnivore" as a Dietary and Lifestyle Choice is a CULTURAL and Ecological Matter -- NOT an Evolutionary Change ...


May 6, 2012 -- 5:15PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 12:15PM, christine3 wrote:

We have come to a stepping off point in our evolution....


No, we have not. Some people choose a diet that contains no meat. Others choose differently. One choice is not superior over another.


Moderated by Merope on May 07, 2012 - 12:39AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 6:04PM #603
christine3
Posts: 6,996

May 6, 2012 -- 5:15PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 12:15PM, christine3 wrote:

We have come to a stepping off point in our evolution....


No, we have not. Some people choose a diet that contains no meat. Others choose differently. One choice is not superior over another.




I am NOT just talking about meat eating but the whole thing.  I am talking about a change of direction in the planet.  It has come to that.  That's what I'm talking about.  No skin off your nose.  The planet is going to make a right turn away from mass consumption of meat and all the cruelty it entails.  I look forward to it!  What I am talking about is, lets cause less suffering...what a novel idea.

Moderated by Merope on May 07, 2012 - 12:40AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 6:28PM #604
teilhard
Posts: 50,878

The Problem of Human Stupidity/Cruelty toward ALL other Living Things is a huge GENERAL Problem not at all limited to "ANIMAL 'Rights'" but to ALL of our Relationships with ALL Living Things and also the NON-Living World ...


May 6, 2012 -- 6:04PM, christine3 wrote:


I am NOT just talking about meat eating but the whole thing.  I am talking about a change of direction in the planet.  It has come to that.  That's what I'm talking about.  No skin off your nose.  The planet is going to make a right turn away from mass consumption of meat and all the cruelty it entails.  I look forward to it!  What I am talking about is, lets cause less suffering...what a novel idea.


Moderated by Merope on May 07, 2012 - 12:41AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 6:45PM #605
mountain_man
Posts: 39,147

May 6, 2012 -- 6:04PM, christine3 wrote:

I am NOT just talking about meat eating but the whole thing.....


The "whole thing" is your chosen belief. Not facts, not based on science, not based on human biology, but on your beliefs. Those beliefs are no better than, not superior to, not any more moral, than any other view on this topic.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:02PM #606
christine3
Posts: 6,996

May 6, 2012 -- 6:45PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 6:04PM, christine3 wrote:

I am NOT just talking about meat eating but the whole thing.....


The "whole thing" is your chosen belief. Not facts, not based on science, not based on human biology, but on your beliefs. Those beliefs are no better than, not superior to, not any more moral, than any other view on this topic.




I have never said I was superior, or more moral.  I would never say such a thing, yet you infer that I do.  All I have said is that there needs to be change.  I take stock of suffering.  Everything needs to be scaled down.  I am concerned over the constant slaughter of animals, and people don't see it because these places are far removed.  They are not supposed to be seen.  It people watched what regularly goes on, they'd have a hissy fit.  People can just go into their supermarket and purchase a plastic platter of meat in a 6X8 inch rectangle, and that's as far as they think.  Out of sight, out of mind.  Things are going to change around here in the not too distant future.  I welcome it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:05PM #607
christine3
Posts: 6,996

May 6, 2012 -- 6:45PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 6:04PM, christine3 wrote:

I am NOT just talking about meat eating but the whole thing.....


The "whole thing" is your chosen belief. Not facts, not based on science, not based on human biology, but on your beliefs. Those beliefs are no better than, not superior to, not any more moral, than any other view on this topic.




"My chosen belief".  People can't have their chosen beliefs.  Now that's great.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 7:35PM #608
christzen
Posts: 6,569

May 6, 2012 -- 5:55PM, rabello wrote:


Nature didn't "design" anything.   Meat eating by humans is an adaptation, just as grass eating by cows is an adaptation.  It is not a primary adaptation in humans, though, because humans lack physical adaptations to be able to kill animals or to eat it's raw flesh, fat and muscles or drink its raw blood.  Could have gone a different way had another species evolved to be able to make tools to counter the weapons of mass destruction human beings creat to make up for their limited physical adaptations.



Your answer shows you understand my meaning.  Design, evolutionary adaptation, it means the same thing.


 


May 6, 2012 -- 5:55PM, rabello wrote:

I certainly hope you will get a serious answer to this most significant of questions, since it is at odd with the claim that nature "designed" animals to be eaten by humans, and humans to eat animals.  



Already been answered.Go back and read.


 


May 6, 2012 -- 5:55PM, rabello wrote:

I am neither vegetarian nor vegan, but I do think these are the most enlightened choices that a person can make in the corrupted, techno-geeky, social-darwinistic modern world where meat eating has nothing to do with preventing starvation.



So you argue for a position you neither practice nor apparently truly believe in, since you don't practice it?

Moderated by Merope on May 07, 2012 - 01:08AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 10:06PM #609
rabello
Posts: 20,955

May 6, 2012 -- 7:35PM, christzen wrote:


Play the semantics game if you wish.Your answer shows you understand my meaning even if you lack the honesty to admit such.Design,evolutionary adaptation,it means the same thing.




Nope.  It's not semantics.  The word design implies a goal.   Nature has no "goal".  Nature did not provide animals for humans to eat.  Nature did not provide humans to eat animals.  Animals and humans are on equal footing in nature.   If the cow can get away from man's weapons of mass destruction, good for it.  Nature doesn't "intend" any outcome.  It is not for nothing that humans have chosen grass eaters that wouldn't eat them to kill on an industrial scale.  Hardly a fair fight, wouldn't you agree?


Evolutionary adaptation and design DO NOT mean the same thing.   To think so, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of biological adaptation -- a misunderstanding that creates an excuse for the assumption that "man" has dominion over all the animals.


May 6, 2012 -- 7:35PM, christzen wrote:


Already been answered.Go back and read.




Sorry, I surely don't know what YOUR answer is your contradictory images.   The question is "why" not "what if"


 


May 6, 2012 -- 7:35PM, christzen wrote:


So you argue for a position you neither practice nor apparently truly believe in,since you don't practice it?




I practice it as much as I can within the limits of my time.  I eat no red meat, and only chicken or fish that was not industrially produced.  Unlike other meat eaters here I freely admit that I am contributing to the suffering of animals whenever I eat meat.  


May 6, 2012 -- 7:35PM, christzen wrote:


Thanks for letting me know I have no need to take your rants seriously,since you don't actually practice what you preach.



Those of you with such hurt feelings are too much!  A discussion about a philosophical principle is not a "rant" nor is it "preaching".   The fact that I am not a vegetarian but can appreciate the philosophical principles of vegetarianism and the humane, respectful treatment of animals, without resorting to the sheer nastiness that mountain_man, and now you, rely on to make your "arguments" means that meat eaters are not so superior in their knowledge or their assumptions, and that the subject CAN be discussed without the malevolent bigotry directed, in this case, at Christine.


The emotional defensiveness displayed by both you and mountain_man remind me of the emotional defensiveness smokers used to display, when they would become enraged that they please not smoke, or at least take it out back.  Such a benign request would induce utter rage.  But even then, there were smokers who "got it" and wouldn't make an issue of it.  They were not hypocrites for doing that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 10:34PM #610
christine3
Posts: 6,996

From NotMilk.com


During eight years of researching and writing about milk and dairy issues, today's column has been the most painful for me to write. 


If you, like most consumers, vegetarians, and animal rights activists, assume that baby male calves are sold for veal, then you are sadly mistaken. There are approximately 9.15 million cows being milked in America. On average, a milking cow gives birth once every sixteen months. That's the industry turn-around, with all things (disease, production, etc.) being factored. So, 6.8 million calves are birthed during each 12 month period. Half of those calves are born female, and are raised to become milking cows like their mothers. Some 3.4 million calves are male. Are these infant male bovines fated to live their short lives in confinement crates, raised anemic so that their flesh contains little fat, while these animals live tortured lives? Well, sure. That's the way it's done to satisfy restaurant patron's craving for baby flesh, or veal. How many of the 3.4 million bulls are sold as veal? Less than one out of five, or about 650,000. 


In 1986, 1.2 million of these male cows were sold as veal, but as people become more aware of the terrible injustices of raising innocent victims for veal consumption, there has been a politically correct rejection of veal. Unfortunately, baby male calves continue to be birthed. What happens to unwanted baby male calves? What happens to the other four out of five infant males who are not raised and sold for veal? This truth is going to get ugly for those who have the ability to feel. The major cost of raising baby males for veal is the price of feed. A typical baby male calf weighing 100 pounds is sold at the age of one-week. These animals are fed for four months, during which they each gain about 2.5 pounds per day. They are then sold at cattle auctions. If the price of veal is $1.70 per pound, a farmer will lose about $100 during the process. 


Here are this week’s wholesale prices for veal. www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/NW_LS452.TXT The USDA report reflects that a 245 pound Slaughtered carcass, hide and head removed, yields approximately $210, or about 86 cents per pound. Dairy farmers no longer approach the break even point. Dairy farmers cannot afford to feed male calves. Bulls do not make great pets. Raising veal is a big money loser. Most farmers know this. What do you imagine happens to 2,650,000 baby male calves? Can you wildest dream approach the true nightmare? Hint: They are not shipped to Pamplona to run through the streets and then appear in bull fights. Hint: They do not appear on Wall Street, or in Merril Lynch commercials. Hint: They are not put out to stud, because most cows are artificially inseminated. 


If you have yet to come to terms with the scientific facts that support a NotMilk regimen, perhaps you can examine issues of compassion, as they apply to your ability to face facts. When eating your next slice of pizza, or licking your next ice cream cone, take responsibility for creating that demand which results in more animals dying in the above-described manner. Ninety percent of the cows milked in America are of the black and white variety. Most are Holsteins. Some are mixed breeds, brown Swiss mixed with Holsteins. Drive through cattle country and see the black angus grazing through America's heartland. Visit the feed lots and you see few (if any) Holstein males. 


This dirty secret is an unwritten rule of an industry that paints tranquil scenes on milk cartons. Do not let the public know. There are thousands of "players" keeping this horror to themselves. A 21st century holocaust of torture and death, pain and emotional distress, occurring away from your sight. Even when video documentation occurs, as it did two years ago, no television station would violate that unwritten rule which would hurt their bottom lines. Your bottom line is to always take responsibility for your actions. You may not pull the trigger of that gun. You may not witness the suffering or pain. You do not watch the animal cry, then die. Consume dairy products, and you become the executioner. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 61 of 94  •  Prev 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 ... 94 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook